← All Phrases

“NFAC”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B48,618 judgments

The decision most relied on for NFAC is Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (174 Taxmann.com 1203), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on NFAC

Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
174 Taxmann.com 1203 · 2025 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court
32
citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC
145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT
366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court
13
citing judgments

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC
157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported
11
citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing NFAC

Jaipur Gem Crafts, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Godha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 21-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 raising grounds of appeal at Form No. 36. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that

Sri. Panati Vinaykumar, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 234ASection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 30.12.2023 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised ... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] DELHI/ National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is Sri Panati Vinaykumar, Bengaluru Page 2 of 6 not justified in upholding the determination of total income of appellant in the Intimation

Sritherumalleshwara Co-Operative Society, Chitradurga vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.12.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds:- “1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S. Bulk Liquid Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajagopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 30Section 32Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Sahu, Accountant Member These appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 02.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2020-21 on the following grounds:- ““1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section

Executors of the Will of Late Smt. Gaindibai Barjatya, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Mumbai

ITA 1299/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

Oord India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400098 NFAC, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Appellant Appellant by : Respondent by : Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PAN/GIR No:AAACH5430J DiveshChawala Ms. Rajeshwari Menon ... Amarjit Singh (AM): .. Respondent आदेश / ORDER This e-appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “Ground No. 1: No reasonable opportunity of being heard granted

Asst. CIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Consultants Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 2854/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

filed by the Revenue against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since similar grounds of appeal were raised in both the appeals, the same were heard together and are Assessment Years

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 2853/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: or at the time of hearing. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of financial services. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 19/10/2018 declaring total income of INR 49,21,70,290/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act vide order, dated 09/04/2021, after making, in

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

filed by the Revenue against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’]. Since similar grounds of appeal were raised in both the appeals, the same were heard together and are Assessment Years

Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind, Mumbai City vs. D.C.I.T. (Exemption)-II(1) Mum, Mumbai City

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2382/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OMPRAKASH KANT,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 26/04/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ’the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2015-16, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against

ACIT, Cir-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marchant Agri Global Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1493/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M Bhatt, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 44

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that :- 2 M/s. Merchant

M/S. Brandmark Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ward 12(1) (3) /AO NFAC, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2411/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh SabooFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 200ASection 234E

Solution Pvt. Ltd. …………. Appellant 17, Orbit Industrial Premises Opp. Hometel Hotel Malad West Mumbai – 400 064 [PAN: AAECB4498G] Vs Ward 12(1)(2)/AO NFAC CIT Appeals / AO-NFAC New Delhi …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Sh. Mahesh Saboo For the Respondent/Department : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Conclusion of hearing ... present appeal Assessee has challenged the order, dated 23/11/2021, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against

Harveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 289/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 23.08.2023 by the NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y 2012-13. 2. The appeal is late by 97 days. 3. Finding the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation ... /NFAC and, therefore, could not attend the proceedings. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the impugned order by the NFAC. In my considered opinion, NFAC should have ensured that the notice issued by it was actually served upon the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3372/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 The Institute Of Company Vs. Dcit, Secretaries Of India, Circle Exemp Icsi House 2(1) 22 Institutional Area, Delhi Lodi Road, H.O Aliganj, Delhi 110003 Pan Aaatt1103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2021- 22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- The Institute of Company Secretaries ... India vs. DCIT 2 “1. That the Order of learned CIT (A), NFAC partly sustaining the order of the learned Assessing Officer is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set- aside. 2. That the learned CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts

Rajesh Dashrath Sawale, Kharghar vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 28/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.28/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. AthavaleFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058104306(1), dated 21.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both ... parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that learned NFAC has passed the lower appellate order ex parte whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.34,50,000/-. 2 ITA.No.28/PUN/2024 Rajesh Dashrath Sawale 3. The Revenue vehemently

Ganraj Township LLP, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 22/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita Nos.21 & 22/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

that the assessee herein had been rightly proceeded ex parte in the lower appellate proceedings on account of its failure to respond to the NFAC’s notices served 2 ITA.Nos.21 & 22/PUN/2024 Ganraj Township LLP at the given e-mail address(es). She fails to dispute the clinching identical fact ... notices could not be altogether ruled out, it is deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the learned NFAC for afresh adjudication in accordance with law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus only

Ganraj Township LLP, Pune vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 21/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita Nos.21 & 22/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

that the assessee herein had been rightly proceeded ex parte in the lower appellate proceedings on account of its failure to respond to the NFAC’s notices served 2 ITA.Nos.21 & 22/PUN/2024 Ganraj Township LLP at the given e-mail address(es). She fails to dispute the clinching identical fact ... notices could not be altogether ruled out, it is deemed appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the learned NFAC for afresh adjudication in accordance with law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus only

Vidya Sunil Mane, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 131/PUN/2024[AY2014-2015 TDS Q4FY2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.128, 129, 130 & 131/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vidya Sunil Mane, The Income Tax Officer, F1 Midc, Gokulshirgaon V Tds, Kolhapur. Kolhpur, Kolhapur – 416234. S Pan: Acbpm1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 21.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.128/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2013-14, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 21.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided

Vidya Sunil Mane, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 130/PUN/2024[AY2014-2015 TDS Q3FY2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.128, 129, 130 & 131/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vidya Sunil Mane, The Income Tax Officer, F1 Midc, Gokulshirgaon V Tds, Kolhapur. Kolhpur, Kolhapur – 416234. S Pan: Acbpm1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 21.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.128/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2013-14, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 21.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided

Vidya Sunil Mane, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 129/PUN/2024[AY2014-2015 TDS Q2FY2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.128, 129, 130 & 131/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vidya Sunil Mane, The Income Tax Officer, F1 Midc, Gokulshirgaon V Tds, Kolhapur. Kolhpur, Kolhapur – 416234. S Pan: Acbpm1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 21.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.128/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2013-14, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 21.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided

Vidya Sunil Mane, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Kolhapur, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 128/PUN/2024[2013-2014 TDS Q4 FY2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.128, 129, 130 & 131/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vidya Sunil Mane, The Income Tax Officer, F1 Midc, Gokulshirgaon V Tds, Kolhapur. Kolhpur, Kolhapur – 416234. S Pan: Acbpm1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mayuresh Doshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 21.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.128/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2013-14, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2013-14 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These four appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 all dated 21.11.2023. Since issue involved is same, all these appeals were heard together and decided

Govind Milk and Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Phaltan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara

ITA 848/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.848/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Govind Milk & Milk Products The Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., V Officer, Ward-3, Ganesh Sheri, Pune Pandharpur S Satara. Road, At Post Kolki, Phaltan, Satara, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacg7588A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.05.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Passing Her Order Ex-Parte Without Allowing Appellant Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.43,51,377/- Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Made By The Ld Ao Without Govind Milk & Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 201(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 40

26/03/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.05.2023. The assessee for A.Y.2019-20 has raised the following grounds of appeal ... record. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT